Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2015

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN 21:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've recently been working on it and have based its layout on a number of other featured medal tables. I believe it may now meet the criteria for inclusion and will be willing to fix any issues. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I can confidently confirm my support for this list now that a few more people have proofread the list.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no major pressing issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The red in the image needs to become something like green. Also, the legend is missing and "eleven" is a joke. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  None of this is actionable, what "legend" do you want? What do you mean by "eleven" is a joke? If you'd like to help then please help, otherwise I suggest you don't continue to add such cryptic and unhelpful commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine now, but are there deleted entries in the history of the article after Aug 31? Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, why? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, I am pretty sure I remember seeing "11" being spelled out in the table, but maybe there was some sort of glitch. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and feel free to rc my comments. Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the article. Looks Good. Ravendrop 19:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've adopted the wording used in the main article. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as passed. Remember to review other people's nominations, so that future nominations will run faster! --PresN 21:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:28, 28 September 2015 [2].

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Katrina Kaif is one of the most popular actresses in Bollywood. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. Krish | Talk 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

• Support Krish!, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this list and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The image of Kaif is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here, and both captions are suitable. This list is straight forward, and is in keeping with other featured filmography lists of Indian actors and actresses. The references used are also verifiable and in keeping with Wikipedia's citation formatting guidelines. My only suggestion would be to use "box office" consistently throughout, as I noticed in some places, you've hyphenated the term and in other places, you've left a space. Thank you for your hard work in crafting this list, and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• Kaif in 2013 — sounds vague. Make it clear.
• British-Indian actress? Did she act in any English films made by UK filmmakers?

She is British-Indian as her mother is English and her father is British Kashmiri. Cowlibob (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob, thanks for responding. Do you think rephrasing it as actress of British-Indian origin would be a better idea? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source in the lead [[3]] uses British-Indian and so does our GA article on her. I must confess that I'm not clear on how nationalities are determined on Wikipedia. Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to solve this by adding "British born Indian actress". I don't know if it is grammatically correct.Krish | Talk 11:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it okay, but if someone points at it, do not blame me. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure whether Ek Tha Tiger can be called a "thriller".
• For JTHJ, is it just SRK? What happened to Anushka Sharma here? Also it is a romantic film directed by Yash Chopra, not a Chopra's romance. :)
• Nothing about the critical and BO reception about Bang Bang! and Phantom is mentioned.

Both films were panned by critics and were moderate successful as both cannot recover their huge costs. She has starred in only four good films (Namastey London, New York, ZNMD, and Raajneeti) and rest were panned. I don't think we can write this. It would look repetitive, but i have tried to maintain neutrality, wherever i could.Krish | Talk 12:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see one dead link and six redirects here. Kindly fix them.

Fixed. Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I require sources that explicitly state the principal photography has commenced in the case of Fitoor, Jagga Jasoos and Kal Jisne Dekha. And, wasn't the last been titled as Baar Baar Dekho?
• It is Sridhar Pillai for reference 2.
• Author not mentioned for reference number 8.
• Taran Adarsh and Raja Sen are not linked in reference numbers 13 and 17. Why?

Message me once all are done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks Pavanjandhyala.Krish | Talk 11:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Krish!, I see that these are not yet done.

• The dead link (reference number 5) isn't fixed yet.
• Can anyone knowledgeable explain me in brief why Ek Tha Tiger is considered a thriller?
• Are you sure you want to call JTHJ a Yash Chopra Romance?
• It is "Sridhar" not "Shridhar" Pillai for reference 2.
• Taran Adarsh and Raja Sen are not linked in reference numbers 14 and 18.
• Fitoor and Jagga Jassoos require sources that filming has begun, like this. Also Baar Baar Dekho's filming has commenced and is not listed here.

Done. Also, we don't link names in references.Krish | Talk 13:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We will link them. For example if you want to link Charulatha Mani, we will use "| last=Mani | first=Charulatha | authorlink=Charulatha Mani" in the reference. Also, no source has been provided about Jagga Jasoos filming. The source i gave you for Fitoor isn't formatted correctly. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Linked both the authors (Adarsh at first mention). Also, the same source is cited for both films and it says about her juggling between both films.Krish | Talk 13:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that all my concerns were met by the nominator and now i support this list's promotion to FL status. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you find a way to reword an instance of "a critical and commercial failure" or try to avoid using "commercial" several times?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tweaked the first mention and removed a commercial term from another.Krish | Talk 09:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you not rely so much on Bollywood Hungama? Try to replace some with newspaper sources for more variation if you can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we don't have many trusted sites for Indian films as compared to American such as Rotten Tomatoes, MetacritiC, AllMovie and rest of the others. BH is the only site which has a profile of each and every Bollywood film. I don't think citing reviews can help either. That's why.Krish | Talk 09:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cowlibob

• "Kaif had starred in a series of box-office hits, but her performances in them were generally criticised" What does this sentence mean? Seems out of place.
• Starring opposite Akshay Kumar and Salman Khan are key to her early career. This isn't really emphasised in the lead.

It's mentioned that Kaif starred opposite Kumar for the first of many films but only the first is mentioned. The majority of films she has starred has been collaborations with these two actors and reading the lead you can't see that. Cowlibob (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Among these were two of the highest grossing productions" highest grossing of what, year? all time?
• Have a different image than the main article.
• According to the BH source she played Indu Pratap in Raajneeti.
• Rina Kaif / Popdi Chinchpokli? Did she play two characters in Boom?

Cowlibob (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Krish | Talk 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The BH source for Blue doesn't specify that Kaif's character was a cameo.
• The Hindu source for Allari Pidugu doesn't specify that Kaif's character is called Swati.
• I.V. Sasi -->I. V. Sasi
• BH Source for Humko Deewana... says her character is called "Jia Yashwardhan"
• Sify source for Balram doesn't specify her character's name
• BH source for Namastey London says her character is simply "Jasmeet Malhotra"
• Could you go through each of the films and ensure that everything is supported by the references including character name. Cowlibob (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Krish | Talk 12:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

• "Ref(s)" should be "Ref." within the tooltip template.

That's because some films are cited with multiple refrences.Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Name which segment of Bombay Talkies Kaif appeared in, and mention the director of that segment in the main article rather than a footnote. "Multiple directors" appears absurd.

Added about the segment in which she appeared. But, I think as a whole its a four director film. Its same in all other filmographies.Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive URLs to avoid link rotting.

Well, BH sources need not be archived as it's a popular film website, probably satying for the long time. And, the rest, i will do when i have time.Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Quite well cited list page. — Cirt (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:30, 28 September 2015 [4].

Nominator(s): Macosal (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the article meets the criteria for a featured list, having being reformatted based on several other similar Featured Lists of football club players such as List of Manchester United F.C. players and List of Liverpool F.C. players. The list was previously Featured in 2007 before this status was removed in 2012. All of the issues raised then have now been fixed. Macosal (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice work, all looks good now. If you get a chance, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Greg Chappell/archive2? Harrias ^talk 19:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I feel this now meets the criteria. With regards ALeagueStats.com, it appears error-free, well-maintained and comprehensive, so I'm content with its use on this list. One final suggestion: would the nationalities look better left-aligned? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers. Once again I think I agree - the nationalities do look neater when aligned left (although I couldn't find any MoS guideline on this). Thanks again for your suggestions/feedback, Macosal (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps @Daniel: would be interested in commenting on this nomination, as the user who first nominated it in April 2007? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Brief comments:

  Why is the Hutchinson image alone in using a reference in the caption? The information mentioned is cited in the table so I feel it's unnecessary, and removing it would be more uniform.

  Although the table does list Wilkinson as having the second most appearances, this can't be assumed to mean he was the previous record holder for the club before Hutchinson (they could feasibly both have simultaneously exceeded a previous record before Hutchinson then took the lead, for example, or a previous record could have been beaten by Hutchinson, then by Wilkinson who rose to second). A reference to back up in no uncertain terms that the latter did hold the record would be ideal here.

  Apart from looking at these I'm happy with the overall shape of the article here. GRAPPLE ^X 08:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers, have removed the reference in the caption and reworded the sentence such that it is now reflected by the sources used. Macosal (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That works. If you do turn up a source crediting Wilkinson as being the most capped in his time then by all means, the old wording supported with that would be ideal, but as it is now it's also grand. Happy to support this one. GRAPPLE ^X 09:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:29, 28 September 2015 [5].

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2015 Tour de France finished two days ago. This is a list that shows all the teams and the riders who participated. All the riders are shown first, including their placing in the general classification, and are then grouped by team and summarised by nation below.

This is my first attempt at preparing and nominating a featured list – I've never come near this page before. I've mostly followed another FL (List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia) as a guide, but it's fairly old so I don't know how much it reflects modern practice. Your advice and criticism is very much appreciated. Relentlessly (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tables review - Relentlessly, the tables need "scope" formatting, as explained in MOS:DTT. Also, the table for "By nationality" has no referencing on it. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maile66 and many thanks for the review. I think I've added the scope as required in that page? I've also added some references to the lead section of that paragraph, but all the data in the table replicates content and references from above. Does this address your concerns?

A question, looking at that MOS page, is whether it should be using table summaries (for the "by rider" section) and table captions (for the "by team" section). Could you comment?

Many thanks again for your comments. Relentlessly (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, let me say that I should have given you more clear instructions. There is also scope=row to be done (and more tedious to do each row). I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me about the summaries/captions. But I think FL List of Tour de France general classification winners is a good example of what you are looking for. The cycling FL I find seem to have all been done in 2011. The individual tables aren't referenced as yours are, but in passing FL or FA, consistency is noticed. Consistency is referencing, also, so I'm satisfied with the references you added to the lead paragraph of "By nationality". — Maile (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Maile66. I was going by the footnote on that page that suggests only adding scope="row" to th elements. But I have updated the page with your suggested change (and that's what regex is for!). WRT summaries, I'm wondering whether doing this would be better than what I've done so far? Relentlessly (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm happy to give you the first Support on this nomination. As for your comment about that which might be better - I say, as long as you stay within the MOS and are consistent throughout, take the easiest route. Wikipedia always has several different ways of arriving at the same point. Good luck to you. — Maile (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the "team" part of the title is superfluous since it is pretty obvious this is a list targeted towards cyclists. Also, I believe the final position entry should include the times. Nergaal (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it lists teams and then cyclists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Nergaal, thanks for commenting. I didn't create the article, and its name is consistent with other Grand Tour cycling lists. I think "teams" refers to two things: the list of teams at the top (relevant because each cycling race has a different selection of teams entered) and the listings of teams (the "by teams" section). As to the times, I can add them if you think it adds significant value to the article. The trouble is that there is endless data you can add – points, mountain points, other standings. It'll take a little while, but I think it's a reasonable thing to add: I'll get on and do it. Relentlessly (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nergaal I've now added all the times. Relentlessly (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• #61 is lacking the time
• should DSQ-14 be listed above DNF-14?
• listing riders by their jersey numbers kinda makes sense, but they are already listed in that order in the by team section. would the list look better if they were listed in order of classification?
• the teams section is missing the nationalities
• perhaps the likely rationale for wild cards would be useful since this is a "list of teams"
• the "by x" sections should be merged into a "Cyclists" one, then the "by" part would make sense
• intro should mention that x nationalities were represented, with France about 20% of the riders
• isn't this the first time Eritrea was represented?
• perhaps mention briefly the biggest absentees?
• Quintana won two jerseys?

Nergaal (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your additional comments, Nergaal. One by one:

• Done, thanks.
• Yes, that's how it appears in ProCyclingStats. He was disqualified during the stage.
• I can see your point, though I'm not sure it makes much odds, as they are very easy to re-sort! It's a list of the riders, though, rather than a report of the general classification: it's more a start list than a finishing list.
• The teams' nationalities? They are frequently irrelevant: teams do not represent their countries in any sense, and are often misleading. For example, BMC is registered as American but is based in Switzerland.
• Added.
• Agreed, done.
• Done.
• Done.
• I'm not sure who this would be or how it would be phrased without going into OR. Marcel Kittel is the most obvious absentee, perhaps along with Philippe Gilbert, but all the contenders for the overall classification were present. Very happy to think again if you think this is important.
• Removed the duplicate.

Thanks for your thorough review. Relentlessly (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support you deleted Quintana's name though. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, thanks for your work, nice list. Harrias ^talk 18:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Had the pleasure of witnessing the first two stages in Utrecht, was a fantastic race!

• "All seventeen UCI WorldTeams were automatically invited and were obliged to attend the race."
• "France provided the the largest number (41 riders)." sentence needs revising
• "38 of the riders failed to finish the race, so 160 riders completed the final stage in Paris." I would flip this sentence around, so it states the number that finished first. I feel it will read better as a result
• "who had also won the race in 2013." -> who won the 2013 Tour.
• I'm not sure why you use data-sort-value="Nibali, Vincenzo" when we have the {{sortname}} template for that?
• Should the time be presented as it is in List of Tour de France general classification winners, with apostrophes?
• No need for the by team tables to be less than 100% font size
• they also need rowscopes per MOS:DTT
• Should be no capitals in references, regardless of how they are presented on the web page
• This page is very long at 142,000 bytes, one solution would be to use this page as a general reference and then cite those riders who didn't finish the Tour in the table. Would help with loading times on the page, as it lags a bit for me

NapHit (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm on holiday and unable to deal with these substantially fit the next two weeks. (I never expected this would take so long...) A couple of points: I'm using data-sort-value because it's recommended on {{hs}}, which was used previously. I programmatically converted it using the DEFAULTSORT value for each page for consistency. I added row scope, but it was removed by another user who I presumed knew more about table formatting. The rest I can't respond to until 20 September, unfortunately... Relentlessly (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing that occurs to me, NapHit, is that the individual citations also support the riders' ages. I don't see how they can be removed. Relentlessly (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, although you could add a note saying to verify a rider's age you can click on the link to their name in the classifications ref? Also make sure the dashes in the refs are en dashes and not normal dashes, I noticed a lot are the latter. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The riders ages and withdrawals can be taken from the team pages (under the "THE RIDERS" tab). BaldBoris 18:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion, BaldBoris, and I've done it for the rider details, though I've kept the withdrawal citations because they frequently add useful information and 56 citations is perfectly reasonable. Relentlessly (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, NapHit, I'm back. Your comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 are fixed. I'm reluctant to use {{sortname}} because it would have no visible or technical effect. The times could be presented as in List of Tour de France general classification winners, but that would contravene MOS:UNIT. I realise that cycling articles (including mine) have in the past used the apostrophe format; I'm very happy to go to that if you think it's better. Finally, I disagree with your suggestion for indirect referencing because, so far as I can tell, it is not supported by Wikipedia's policies on referencing. I appreciate and look forward to your response! Relentlessly (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've used {{sortname}} for 2012, and it works fine. Some other things I've done differently is put the jerseys on the right side of the rider and the team ones next to the riders, both of which I think look tidier in terms of alignment, and put the team code in parentheses. There are other small things, but nothing major. BaldBoris 11:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BaldBoris. I will indeed use {{sortname}} in future, but it seems pointless to go to the work of changing it here, since the effect would be precisely nil! With your other changes, I agree and, for the sake of consistency I'll change this page over later on today. I'm very happy to do minor tweaks here as well, so as to get a perfect template for future lists, if you have any... Relentlessly (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done some minor fixes to the tables, but there's some others that I think need doing in "By starting number"; center align No. and link DNF/DNS for consistancy with "By teams". BaldBoris 18:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the withdrawals all need to either be in italics or not, including the legend (as with the 2009 Giro). I'm not too sure what the need for the italics is though? I'd say uninitialised. "By teams" should have the "Rider" header. Is "hr" in the times just your preference? Because I've never seen it elsewhere (apart from the articles you've done). In this case especially, I think it clogs up an already congested space. Lastly, I do understand why "Stage wins" doesn't have a total, but for some reason it just looks odd without. BaldBoris 10:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BaldBoris, thanks for your detailed comments. I have centred No. and linked DNF/DNS/DSQ. I have deitalicised it (I presume that's what you mean, not uninitialised). I have indeed used "hr" everywhere, because I thought it was normal in English, though I have since noticed the difference from most of Wikipedia. Neither style is recommended in MOS:UNIT, by the way. I'll change it if you think it's important. To reduce the congestion I have separated time out into a separate column. Finally, I have added the total to the table of stage wins and a note to explain why it's only 20. (This confusion was why I didn't include it before.) Any thoughts on these changes? Relentlessly (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that all cycling articles should use the same style. Especially in this case, to match that used in 2015 Tour de France. Position can now be now be changed to Pos., to reduce space, and I think the empty cell should em dash (like GT GC timelines). BaldBoris 14:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done, BaldBoris. Relentlessly (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Is there a reason for the extensive legend which then does not get used? Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thisisnotatest I don't understand. The legend is used. Could you clarify? Relentlessly (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Relentlessly, I'm sorry. I missed it. Looking again I see it is used. I've struck out my comment. Thisisnotatest (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall I'm happy enough to support this one. I'm not 100% sure that the jersey icons are ideal given that some are different only by colour, but to me I would suppose the mouse-over text alleviates this, so it's not objection-worthy. GRAPPLE ^X 09:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks like my comments have been addressed and the list has really improved as a result. Great work. NapHit (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I felt it was important. Its pretty much a list of the entire Soviet party leadership 1930–1934. If someone notices why so many people died during the 1930s its because Stalin killed them. Thanks, --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support for featured list status. Seattle (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Colipon:

• Under "plenums", I don't see it as necessary to have two columns for "Plenum (CC)" and "Joint plenum (CC–CCC)". I am also not sure if it is necessary to capture the number of days in a separate column. In my view, this section should be listed as a set of bullet points rather than a table, but this is my personal preference. A summary of what the significance of each plenum was would also be nice.
  • First, I'll remove the days (no problem). I prefer tableizing it (since everything else is tableized), The reason I have two columns is that the plenary session and the joint plenary session had different powers; the CC–CCC plenums could expel members.. Stalin, early in the 1920s, gained control of the CCC (roughly the Soviet counterpart of the CDIC) and used it to expel members (which could only be done through joint CC–CCC plenums). Its a way to highlight its importance. But I'll remove it. No biggy.... As for a summary of plenary sessions, that's much trickier than you'd think. Unlike the CPC, which has a tendency to issue grand policy statements through the CPC Central Committee the CPSU did it through the PB, the government and sometimes the CC itself—therefore, details on CC sessions vary... In any case, done everything you commanded, and I'll be working on finding short summaries of the CC plenary sessions (but I can't promise you any success)...--TIAYN (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll do this tomorrow; Its election season in Norway and I want my party to win.. I'll begin looking at it tomorrow or tuesday... Sorry for the inconvenience + please don't close the FLC until at least wednesday.. I'll fix this. --TIAYN (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Colipon: I'm unable to find info regarding the CC plenary sessions... --TIAYN (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Under "apparatus", is it possible to consolidate cells for which there are multiple officeholders for the same department? For example, Agitation and Mass Campaign Department, Central Asian Bureau, Secret Department, and so on.
•  Done My preference for the abbreviation of "candidate member" is actually "PB (C)" rather than "CPB" as "CPB" may intuitively invoke "Central Politburo". Colipon+(Talk) 16:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Colipon: THanks! --TIAYN (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Object Star of David Unicode symbol may present an accessibility issue as screen readers may not know how to read it aloud. Suggest templating the symbol as an image with appropriate alternate text. Once this has been done and replaced in the article, then this issue can be considered resolved. Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Thisisnotatest: Fixed. --TIAYN (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Trust Is All You Need: Confirmed and struck out. Thisisnotatest (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I'm comfortable enough to believe that the list meets the FL criteria that I'll recuse myself from closing duties. One of the delegates should be closing the FLC now, but they're both active here so that shouldn't be a problem. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Good job. Thanks for sticking with this. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as passed --PresN 20:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Prashant 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian biographical sports drama film Mary Kom starring Priyanka Chopra as the eponymous boxer. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support .DoDung2001 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for the delegates, that DoDung2001 has been indef blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a sockmaster. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I can't find anything wrong with the list.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support : Nice piece of work. Brilliant job and keep up your good work you are an asset to Wikipedia. Daan0001 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Good work on the list, Prashant. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Prashant!, congratulations on a job well done on this list. The image of Chopra is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here. The list conforms to the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and its lede conforms to the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. -- West Virginian (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so many supports. I must have done something right. Thank you everyone.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The second sentence of the opening para needs to be rephrased for clarity.
• Not sure if "while" and "whereas" can be used in the same sentence.
• "the film was released on 5 September 2014." - where?
  • Is the TIFF held out of the world? —Vensatry _(ping) 19:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dont see the issue here? TIFF helds in Toronto? Also release refers to worldwide? What's going on here?Daan0001 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions @Vensatry:?—Prashant 07:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It was premiered at the TIFF on 4 Sep 2014 before having a theatrical release (worldwide if I'm right) the next day. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Tweaked it a bit.—Prashant 17:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The film received generally positive reviews from critics and was a commercial success" - This needs multiple reliable sources
• "Best Film and Best Actress for Chopra" Comma needed after Best Film
• "Dialogue of the Year" - ditto
• This source, cited in the article, states the film received seven nominations at the 21st Screen Awards whereas the article says eight. Furthermore, 'Best Actress – Popular Choice' isn't verified by any of the sources.
• See reference number 22. —Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not able to find. —Vensatry _(ping) 12:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Source number 23 clearly verifies it. After adding another source this became 23 as previously it was 22.—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but the source doesn't say she won the award. Looks like it lists only the nominees. —Vensatry _(ping) 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vensatry: The article does not claim her win for Best Actress Popular, she was only nominated and the source verifies it.—Prashant 13:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad. But then, two of the sources which you've used says the film got only seven nominations, excluding the popular choice award. Looks like the category doesn't having nominations. —Vensatry _(ping) 15:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vensatry: Popular Awards nominations are declared along with those Jury nominations. It's just that (you know) Indian media does not cover these things. I hope its clear now.—Prashant 11:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is two of the sources doesn't include that cat. in the nominees list. They say the film received seven nominations. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes 'Arab Indo Bollywood Awards' and 'Jagran Film Festival' notable ceremonies?

These awards are supported by secondary sources and the latter is even present in this

featured list as well.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. Would like to have the opinion of others. —Vensatry _(ping) 12:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: Would you like to say something about this?—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at Cowlibob's comments here. I hope its helpful.—Prashant 11:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: I was pinged here. I shall simply state what I said in the other nomination. If the award ceremony is able to be redlinked. Per WP:REDLINK, it needs be verifiable and notable (i.e. meet WP:GNG). If it was covered in depth by reliable sources i.e. not just a rundown of winners and nominees so much that you could build an article on it (which is the reason for redlinking) then it should be included in the table of accolades. I haven't looked at these particular ones but I think if sources could be provided supporting notability then they can be included. Cowlibob (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The film never won a Bronze Horse, rather was awarded at the Stockholm International Film Festival Junior. This year's ceremony of the Stockholm International Film Festival is yet to take place.
• Link the first occurrence of all publishers in refs.
  

—Vensatry _(ping) 09:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Done and thanks for your inputs. It really means a lot.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment

• What makes 'businessofcinema.com' a RS?
  

—Vensatry _(ping) 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced it with a TOI source.—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the delegates – Highly displeased with the nominator's behaviour, so not willing to continue my review. He first came up with this a week ago after I left my comments here, and now has labelled my review as silly. —Vensatry _(ping) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the delegates - I didn't labelled his review silly but his one point. The film received 8 nominations at the 2015 Screen Awards, however, this user has an issue—why? 8 nomination are mentioned, and not 7 (according to him). The eighth nomination is cited by another source, and despite knowing that, he was going on and on. The list is perfectly cited by good sources. He even questioned things, which are already present in other FLs, something that is very frustrating. Plus, this user took more than 10 days to review this and was still not clear what he was doing. He could have stretched it to 21st of next month. I tried to resolve his comments politely, but this was the final straw.—Prashant 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot pester somebody to review/re-visit nominations. If you go through the history, it would be quite evident that I wasn't abandoning your nomination. So you cannot offend me for not turning up. Your behaviour towards reviewers in FACs/FLCs is a well-known thing, I'm not surprised. —Vensatry _(ping) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support meets the criteria. Harrias ^talk 07:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
• Spaced hyphens should be replaced with en-dash, per WP:DASH, e.g. ref 2.
• What makes all the redlinked awards notable enough to be included here?
• The Rambling Man Yes they are notable as these awards are widely covered by the secondary sources and see the above discussion for more informatiion. Thanks.—Prashant 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• " in Ningbo City" our article just calls it Ningbo, and it's worth pointing out that this is in China.
• "BIG Star Most Entertaining Actor (Film) Debut – Male" is "BIG Star" part of the name of the award? It doesn't appear in the other BIG Star award titles.
• "Star of the Year Award – Female" appears to be called "Stardust Award for Star of the Year – Female".

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Prashant 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Please check each one off. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. Thanks The Rambling Man.—Prashant 15:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please make sure all retrieval dates use the same format. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 7 title is incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done and let me tell you all retrieval dates use same format. Thanks The Rambling Man.—Prashant 12:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note - Prashant! (now Krish!) left a note on my talk page about this nom that I was replying to, but I thought I should put it here so that everyone can see it. He was asking why this nom is still open after 35 days, when there were 5 supports in the first week:

• TRM hasn't returned to support or not. 35 days is not that long- while we'd like everything to be done in a month or less, the truth is that many nominations don't get closed until closer to 2 months. Finally, delegates do not just count votes- you had 5 supports in the first week, yes (one struck for being made by a sockmaster), but given that they had no actual review attached to them but were followed by extensive reviews by Vensatry and Harrias (and TRM), the only conclusion that I can reach is that they didn't actually review the list- they skimmed it at best and slapped on a support. I'd count that as more like 2 supports, given that I recognize a couple of them as people who've done actual reviews before. So the nom is really at 3 supports, one reviewer who left, and an unfinished review. And that's if we were just counting supports- which we're not; if all we needed was 4 supports and no opposes with no ongoing reviews, I could code up a bot to do the work for me. We're looking for actual reviews which end in support votes, not just counting bolded words. Bare supports followed by real reviews are not usually useful. Please pass this message along; the two areas we've been seeing this a lot in the past few months are music lists and Indian film lists- bare supports are not helpful when issues are present, even if the reviewer is acting in good faith; please spend 5-10 minutes going through the list in more detail, or else the !vote will likely be discounted. --PresN 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: What's the matter now?—Prashant 06:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld

• Delink China. MOS advises against linking countries like that I believe.
• Are Priyadarshini Academy Global Awards and Stockholm International Film Festival Junior likely to ever become blue links? If so create them or delink them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Prashant 18:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Priyadarshini Academy Global Awards are not going to be notable enough for Wikipedia, remove them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say we will never have a page here. I just can't go and create a page because I'm very busy right now. These awards are widely supported by secondary sources and have enough notability.—Prashant 05:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support But I think you should make the extra effort to start the missing links. I'd feel happier it was notable if we had an article rather than shutting off the links.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll create those articles as soon as I have time.—Prashant 18:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove consecutive links per WP:SEAOFBLUE.

Actually that occurs because the category has a large name. National Film Award for Best Popular Film Providing Wholesome Entertainment see.—Prashant 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. The problem was in the lead, with Indian biographical sports drama, where I unlinked "Indian". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The film was premiered"? Remove the "was". It only works in cases like "was released".

Seems you have rectified it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are there so many red linked awards? That should indicate their lack of notability.

No. someone told me to red link them so that someone could create a page. No problems with the notabilty. It was widely discussed above.—Prashant 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work unlinking them. Someone will create pages for those awards anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ref(s)" should be (in syntax mode), {{tooltip|Ref.References}}.

Refrences are in this syntax mode ({{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}), much like other FLs.—Prashant

It's good now. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Does any other awards page FL have something like "List of Bollywood films of 2014"? Kailash29792 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Yes, all Bollywood FLs has that link.—Prashant 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all my comments addressed, this article has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as passed --PresN 20:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [8].

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third attempt on it for FL. Because of someone else, I got accused of a sock and this list failed. I can't let that happen again. This list has gone through a PR and now I feel it meets the criteria's. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A decent list overall, but i want these to be fixed by the nominator/concerned within a reasonable time.

• Please make sure all the links are white here

Will archiving them solve the problem? --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links are fixed. Cowlibob (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• His next venture was Black Friday (2007), a film on the... — what does a venture mean here? Is it his production, script written or directorial?

Reworded.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:19, 2 Spetember 2015 (UTC)

• After making the thriller That Girl in Yellow Boots (2011)... — Again, the same.

Making Indicates he made it, which means he directed it. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmaking is such a beautiful thing, it may mislead the readers that he did produce it also. So, kindly rephrase it to directed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• he served as the creative director in the Amitabh Bachchan-starring television mini-series Yudh (2014),... — i'm of the opinion that the sentence shall look better if it ends with Yudh (2014) starring Amitabh Bachchan.

Done --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Any explanation on the word "presented"?

He helped both the docu's in getting them a theatrical release. If it doesn't looks Important, should I remove it? --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helping two documentaries getting a theatrical release! It does not look so trivial however. Let it stay. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2015, he co-produced two successful ventures NH10 and Hunterrr. — another "venture". Kindly replace it with film.

Done --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing is mentioned about Masaan in the lead, even after weeks of its theatrical release.

Mentioning every film he is associated with in the lead will Increase its size. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to do so for the critical acclaim it has received. But, your explanation seems reasonable enough. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, that movie is worth mentioning. So, I have added it. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message me once all are done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Hoping the best to happen. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:#7CB9E8;|contentstyle=border:1px #7CB9E8 solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from Frankie _talk|content=

Done

• "Anurag Kashyap is an Indian film director, producer, screenwriter and actor" – how about filmmaker?

Filmmaker in place of director or everything?

In place of the first three. -- Frankie _talk 15:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Both films garnered positive reviews" – in the previous sentence you have mentioned three films. Which "both films" are you talking about; the first two or the last two?

Rephrased and removed the critics review section.

• "In 2013, he made a short film on eve teasing titled That Day After Everyday" – what do you mean by "made"?

Rephrased

• "he served as the creative director in the television mini-series"

Done.

• There are some redundant references for example ref 27. Please use sources in the lead only when it's not in the other parts of the article.

Removed

• Wiki-link Sify in reference 15.

Done.

• The Huffington Post is not a very good source to use.

Should I remove this film? Water (2005)? Coz no source like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or All movies mentions his name in the credits. I seriously doubt if he has a writing credit in the film.

• My queries are based on this revision. -- Frankie _talk 15:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Filmfare is a magazine so italicize it in source 72.

Done

• Wiki-link The Hollywood Reporter in ref 79 and de-link it in ref 101.

Done

• Ref 18: The Guardian – I think you know what I am asking for.

Its actually not the guardian, not even in the older version.

See ref 80. -- Frankie _talk 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• International Business Times in ref 86 – the same.

Done

• Is it Mid Day or Mid-day. Write one and stick to it.

Done

• Video from ref 100 seems to be uploaded by a fan. Replace the source.

Its uploaded by Ashish Ghadiali, who is the co-writer and director of the film. You can see his name in the opening credit.

• Wiki-link India Today in source 103. -- Frankie _talk 19:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – After so many nominations, I hope this is going to be its breakthrough attempt. -- Frankie _talk 15:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when I sort the table by "Director", the films he has directed go to the bottom; they should be at the top (same for all the other columns). Name the Bombay Talkies segment he made. For Jayate and Paanch could you give some sort of date in the notes? (approx when it was made, for eg)—indopug (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need in sorting the table but I have mentioned the segment name for Bombay Talkies and Mumbai Cutting. I have mentioned the dates when Jayate and Paanch were supposed to get a theatrical release. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of include a sorting option is that you see your chosen sort at the beginning. It is annoying for the reader to click sort by director and then have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the table.—indopug (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for resolving the Issue yourself. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just archive the URLs as they are unlikely to last forever. Also, Gangs of Wasseypur has an article containing info on both the films. Fit that somehow here. The article otherwise looks good, and has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archived most of the links and added Gangs of Wasseypur. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [9].

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 18:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC), GagaNutella, SNUGGUMS[reply]

Another videography from me and Snuggums. I have modeled the list based on Katy Perry videography, an FL I wrote with the help of the aforementioned user. A thanks to the user IndianBio, who has contributed to the article. I reckon we are close to the six FL criteria, but, as always, thanks to those of you, who comment, support, or even oppose. -- Frankie _talk 18:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Does Gaga's performance at the 87th Academy Awards not count? Just wondering.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No; it wasn't a credited role she had Snuggums (talk / edits)

Sources seem to check out, but I have slight reservations about the use of Idolator. The Wikipedian Penguin 16:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed as a reliable source under WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Just so you know. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's good all day long for GAs, but what makes it a high quality reliable source? The Wikipedian Penguin 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian Penguin All replaced. Thank you. -- Frankie _talk 18:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One final thing: The way you've got the second sentence now makes it seem like she played a doomed starlet in all three music videos. I'd recommend saying, for example, "..."Poker Face" and "Paparazzi". In the video for "Paparazzi", she portrays a...", or some other construction, if you don't like the repetition of "Paparazzi". Nice work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you A Thousand Doors. I went ahead and fixed the text; good catch! Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice job all. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much Johanna :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, your support is very important. GagaNutella^talk 02:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support FrB.TG, GagaNutella, and SNUGGUMS, the prose of the lede is well-written, the lede adequately meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, and the lists meet the criteria set forth at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The image of Lady Gaga is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore suitable for use here; and the image has both standard and alt captions. All the subsequent images have CC licenses, which also enables them to be included in this list. All other previous concerns have been addressed above. Thank you all for your extraordinary work on this filmography. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beyond grateful with your comments. Thank you so much! GagaNutella^talk 12:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed review and support, West Virginian. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [10].

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modelled off the similar list for Wayne Rooney which looks as though it will be a FL in the next few days, this does have a few minor formatting variations. Charlton is still England's leading goal scorer, though Rooney looks like taking that record soon. As always, throw whatever you've got at me! Harrias ^talk 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on style and structure. Nice work. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I feel this list now meets the criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the list ought to note that Rooney is now number one, and when he overtook Charlton's record. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Harrias ^talk 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "with his first hat-trick in international football" does not seem to be referenced

• Added ref at the end of the sentence. Harrias ^talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "final international goal " should mention month/year

• Added. Harrias ^talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "successful 1966 FIFA World Cup campaign" I would prefer to have this be more explicit about ENG winning the title

• Made this more explicit. Harrias ^talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bloomsbury Publishing plc" shouldn't the latter be capitalized?

• Done. Harrias ^talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 16 and 45 are missing dates

• They are not news sources, they don't have dates. Harrias ^talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand "The Times (55408)" notation

• The number in brackets is the issue number, it's quite common when referencing The Times, and is part of what they request for citations. Harrias ^talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• can't really check much of the refs though
• more this to notes: England score listed first, score column indicates score after each Charlton goal.

• I think it is important to make it obvious and clear, rather than hiding it away in the notes. Harrias ^talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am missing something, aren't these goals the pinnacle of his career? I think you could expand on this sentence and say one goal in the group stage, and both of goals in the 2-1 semifinal win. Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Ahh, I see what you mean. Added a bit more in now. Harrias ^talk 13:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Thanks for your comments, I think I have addressed each of them! Harrias ^talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [11].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With appearances in 30 films, plus an extensive stage and television repertoire, Ian Carmichael was a consummate character actor who appeared in some of the most well-known films of the twentieth century, including Private's Progress (1956), and I'm All Right Jack (1959). His portrayals on BBC television of with The World of Wooster—in which he played Bertie Wooster—and as Lord Peter Wimsey all added to his renown and credit. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main Ian Carmichael page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – perhaps my favorite film of his was School for Scoundrels, so what with the rotten bounder already at FL, I'm glad to see this here too. The lead required very little, but I did notice a bit of repetion with "continued to appear throughout his career". The "throughout his career" was even a bit awkward in a few places as by the time you mentioned it, he was already into his career and paying into his pension pot. I tried to fix it, so you may want to have a look. The lists all look solid with everything linked and reliably cited. Cassianto^Talk 23:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks – much appreciated! Your edits are as welcome as they always are. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Ian Carmichael is a favorite supporting player in the few films I've seen him in.

- Footnote a. for A Midsummer Night's Dream has no citation.

- Suggestion (not a deal breaker) - It would make a cleaner column if you bundled the citations for The Lyric Revue, Say Who You Are, Getting Married and Overheard.

- Spot check of the references show no issues.

- Table formatting is in accordance with MOS:DTT.

- Overall, well done. Wish there were an image for this list, but I've searched the internet and found nothing but the non-free image already on his WP biography article. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Maile. I've added the citation for the footnote (good catch!) My rule of thumb for bundling is three citations, so I'll leave it for the present, if that's OK, but if there is another request for it, I'll certainly do it. Many thanks for your thoughts. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - There being no other issues I can see, I'm happy to give my support to this. If you have any time, I could use help with comments on my nomination. — Maile (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No further issues that I can see. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks ATD -as aways your thoughts and comments aremuch appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [12].

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2015 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I can not find anything wrong at the moment. It looks excellent to me. Jimknut (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Another brilliant list from Birdie. A sure-shot FL material.Krish | Talk 16:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good job. Sorry for the delay in returning. I do reiterate that you should look at standardising the Academy Award ceremonies lists when you have more time. Cowlibob (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• How come you guys could add a criticism section to this but to the previous ones you couldn't? Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In this specific ceremony, there was a fair amount of coverage regarding the lack of diversity among the nominees that was not pertaining to only film critics (i.e.: being covered in a neutral third person perspective). Usually we do not include what was snubbed at the Oscars for Neutral point of view purposes and objectivity concerns. However, if there is criticism that results in action that affects the production of the ceremony (protests against homophobia at the 64th Academy Awards and protest regarding lack of diversity at the 68th Academy Awards) without being related to any specific film in particular, then it was agreed that it can be included. The criticism was in response to a lack of diversity based on omission of not just one film in particular (you might think it was because of solely Selma, but also other films such as Beyond the Lights, Dear White People, and Get on Up with prominently black actors were overlooked as well). Furthermore this is focusing on a social problem in general rather than a snubbing of particular films. So we won't give focus on film critics whining that Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, or Crash got "robbed" for the sake of objectivity purposes. Those can be dealt at the respective film's articles.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I am trying to say is that even those points can be briefly mentioned in those articles. If this was widespread and received a whole section, in those cases they probably warrant a sentence somewhere. There are plenty of respectable sources that some actors/movies surprisingly did not win or get nominated in other years. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if they come from respectable sources, that does not mean they should be used. There were many people who thought Fruitvale Station was snubbed for the 86th Oscars or Michael Fassbender in Best Actor for Shame. Every year there will always be perceived snubs. Iget what you are trying to say, but in order to satisfy neutrality, there has to be a rebuttal statement or article defending such choices which is difficult. Snubs and surprises are very arbitrary. Anyways, I suggest you bring this up in the respective talk pages of the ceremonies you think is appropriate. Better yet, ask the FL delegates such as Crisco 1492, Giants2008, or PresN about your inqueries. This FLC should only be devoted to stuff pertain to this specific ceremony.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some actual comments:

• I don't see the point of having the acronym AMPAS in the intro, nor the start time of the ceremony (they can simply me mentioned only later); "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences " is used twice in the intro.

• AMPAS is placed in the intro in order to identify the abbreivation. Removed Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and used AMPAS to avoid redundancy.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the governors awards stuff from the intro should be trimmed town to half; there is other more important information that can be present in the intro instead

• Done: Removed the Governors Awards items since they are mentioned below the competitive winners table and seems redundant. Moved the Sci-Tech Awards sentence to first paragraph like most Oscar ceremony lists. That sentence is still important since that is part of the annual awards festivities.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the intro should mention all the big five winners

• Done: Second intro paragraph now is only devoted two winners of Picture, Director, and four Acting Awards. It also has who won most and small mention of ratings.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "every nominated film won at least one award" you eman every fo the films nominated in the best film category probably, since not all shorts and documentaries could win

• Done: Changed to "every Best Picture nominee"

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• why not have winners in bold?

• Done: Originally there was a dispute over if bold can be used simultaneously with the dagger because according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, screen readers cannot usually detect bold text. The Rambling Man said that the bold text can remain as long as there is a symbol that screen readers can detect (daggers in this case).

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the gover nor awards section probably does not need an extra bullet for the explanations; remove the extra bullets or even merge the explanation row with the winner

• Done: Both award and reason are on same line separated by em-dash

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• you can probably have "The following 17 films received multiple nominations:" move as table cation with the "|+ [insert caption here]" so you dont have sentences ending in "

• Done

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "the box office section can probably discuss the oscar bump the movies received (i.e. how much more they made after they were nominated)

• Done: Large table added with pre-nomination, pre-awards, and post-awards box office figures.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Memoriam can probably easily use 3 rows, and I think some people complained about featuring non-film related entries here

• Done

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal:: I've addressed all your comments.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nice work! Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal:: Thanks. Could you hide your comments in a bar so that these comments don't make a mess and that the FLC delegates can see your comments have been resolved. Keep the support comment outside the bar.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

• Support – Very good piece of work. -- Frankie _talk 21:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: For clarification, I support the accessibility improvement. I'm not qualified to support or oppose the content itself, as I do not follow the awards. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The following comment by SNUGGUMS was inadvertently included in the above discussion on accessibility. I do not know whether it has been resolved, so I am not comfortable hiding it:

  My only other comments would be replacing "Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" with just "Birdman" for recognizability (not everyone knows it by the full title) and replacing "Hollywood, Los Angeles" with "Hollywood, California" since it seems incomplete to list a city/county/neighborhood/etc. without a state. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  Snuggums is welcome to edit this section, including removal of my comment wrap, to reflect their current concerns. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no concerns left, Thisisnotatest, since the dagger has been implemented and the prose has been adjusted. Reaffirming my support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [13].

Nominator(s): Azealia911 _talk 16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an extensive list of songs recorded by American rapper Azealia Banks. It details her very oldest demo tracks such as "Gimme a Chance" and "Barbie Shit", to her more recent tracks like "Ice Princess" and "Wallace".

• Support—particularly on criteria 2 and 3 which I looked at in detail when providing my review above. Great work! —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 22:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azealia911, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review of your list and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I do, however, have just a few comments and suggestions below. I didn't have much more to say in terms of suggestions, as it looks like JennKR has addressed the majority of them. Thank you again for crafting yet another phenomenal list. -- West Virginian (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• First and foremost, the image of Banks is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use in this list. It is good to go! As for the caption of the image, there should be a regular caption for view in the article, and a separate alt caption should be included. The alt caption is meant for readers who cannot see the image and summarizes the image's appearance. With an image of Banks in this green outfit, I'm sure you could craft quite a creative description of her appearance for the alt.

Umm, there already is an alt? Azealia911 _talk

• Diss track should be wiki-linked in the lede since it actually has a Wikipedia article.

Done. Azealia911 _talk

• I am still new to reviewing lists of song recordings, so please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I noticed that Azealia Banks is repeatedly wiki-linked under the "Writer(s)" column. Should it be de-linked after its first wiki-link since the column is unsortable?

I'd discourage that. I deliberately didn't link her in any of the artist columns so that her name would only be wikilinked once per entry, if you sort by year, the first result is different to if you sort by album, so I'd have to link 3 or 4 random occurrences of her name, which would look odd. Azealia911 _talk

Thankyou for your comments. Azealia911 _talk 11:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Azealia911, thank you for addressing my comments. Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have no further issues. Good work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [14].

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another cricket list, we're flooding the nominations list with them at the moment! This one is loosely based on the similar List of ODI cricket centuries scored on debut. I have an open nomination, but it has two supports and no outstanding concerns. As always, all comments and suggestions welcome. Harrias ^talk 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]